Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T06:47:09.809Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Political Economy of Opium Smuggling in Early Nineteenth Century India: Leakage or Resistance?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2009

CLAUDE MARKOVITS
CLAUDE MARKOVITS*
Affiliation:
Centre d'Etudes de l'Inde et de l'Asie du Sud, Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, 54 Boulevard Raspail, 75006Paris Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article looks at the political economy of opium smuggling in India in the first decades of the nineteenth century, in particular in relation to Sindh, one of the last independent polities in the subcontinent. After a description of the smuggling of ‘Malwa’ opium (grown in the princely states of Central India) into China—in defiance of the monopoly of the East India Company over ‘Bengal’ or ‘Patna’ opium, grown in Bihar—it considers the role of Indian merchants and capitalists in its emergence and development, and critiques the argument put forward in a recent book by Amar Farooqi that it represented both a form of ‘subversion’ and that it contributed decisively to capital accumulation in Western India. This article concludes by analysing the role of the opium trade in integrating Sindh into the British imperial trading system, arguing that it was more effective in boosting Empire than in nurturing indigenous capitalism in India.

Type
Research Article
Information
Modern Asian Studies , Volume 43 , Issue 1 , January 2009 , pp. 89 - 111
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Trocki, Carl, Opium, Empire and the Global Political Economy: A Study of the Asian Opium Trade 1750–1950, London, New York, Routledge, 1999.Google Scholar

2 Farooqi, Amar, Smuggling as Subversion: Colonialism, Indian Merchants and the Politics of Opium, New Delhi, New Age International, 1998.Google Scholar

3 Richards, John F., ‘The Indian Empire and Peasant Production of Opium in the Nineteenth Century’, Modern Asian Studies, 15, 1, 1981, pp. 59–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4 Richards, John F., ‘The Opium Industry in British India’, in Subrahmanyam, S. (ed.), Land, Politics and Trade in South Asia, Delhi, Oxford University Press, 2004, pp. 44–81.Google Scholar

5 Farooqi, Smuggling as Subversion, p. 60.

6 See the contribution by George Bryan Souza in this issue of Modern Asian Studies.

7 Greenberg, M., British Trade and the Opening of China, 1800–42, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1951.Google Scholar

8 Trocki, Opium, p. 78.

9 Owen, D.E., British Opium Policy in China and India, New Haven, CT, Yale University Press, 1934, pp. 69–70.Google Scholar

10 On the emergence of Macao as the major hub of the opium trade around 1800, see Manguin, P.Y., Les Nguyen, Macau et le Portugal: Aspects politiques et commerciaux d'une relation privilégiée en Mer de Chine, 1773–1802, Paris, Erele Francaise d' Extreme-orient, 1984, pp. 135–138Google Scholar. I am grateful to Sanjay Subrahmanyam for bringing this source to my attention.

11 Owen, British Opium Policy, p. 70.

12 Trocki, Opium, pp. 79–87.

13 B.B. Chaudhuri, Growth of Commercial Agriculture in Bengal (1757–1900), vol. I, Calcutta, Indian Studio Past and Present, 1964, p. 11. This estimate, however, appears exaggerated. On the conditions of the opium-growing peasantry in Malwa, see Farooqi, Smuggling as Subversion, pp. 66–71.

14 Which tended to increase, as data from early 1823 reveal that the price of Bihar opium had climbed to (Spanish)$2,350 per chest, while that of Malwa opium had only increased to $1,380. Consultation 7A, 17 April 1823, Bengal Board of Revenue (Miscelleaneous) Proceedings (Opium), 7 January to 27 June 1823, Oriental and India Office Collections of the British Library, London.

15 Trocki, Opium, pp. 79–87.

16 See in particular, Bengal Board of Revenue (Miscellaneous) Proceedings, Opium, Consultation 8A, 9 March 1824, enclosing letter from opium agent in Malwa to Board of Revenue, dated 17 February 1824, enclosing ‘Memorandum respecting the export of opium to Pahlie and Demaun’, and Consultation 18, dated 22 April 1824, ibid., enclosing information collected at Pahli by a native informant.

17 Enclosure no 8B in ibid.

18 Bombay Revenue Department to Secretary to the Supreme Government in the Territorial Department at Fort William, 27 February 1822, enclosed in Bengal Board of Revenue (Miscellaneous) Proceedings, Opium, 4 January to 28 June 1822, consultation no 16.

19 Farooqi, Smuggling as Subversion, pp. 94–106.

20 Trocki, Opium, p. 86.

21 Opium Agent in Malwa to Bombay Revenue Department, 29 May 1835, Bombay Revenue Proceedings for 1835, 17 June 1835, no 2740, Oriental and India Office Collections of the British Library.

22 In 1838, duties amounted to 234 kora or kashani rupees (local currencies of Sindh), equivalent to 200 Company rupees per camel load of two chests, i.e. Rupees 100 per chest. See Alexander Burnes, ‘On the Commerce of Hyderabad and Lower Sind’ in Reports and Papers, Political, Geographical and Commercial, Submitted to Government by Sir Alexander Burnes, Lieutenant Leech, Dr Lord and Lieutenant Wood Employed on Missions in the years 1835–36-37 in Scinde, Afghanistan and Adjacent Countries, Calcutta, 1839, p. 21.

23 Trocki, Opium, p. 87.

24 Richards, ‘The Opium Industry’, Tables 1, 2, pp. 54–58, and Table 5, pp. 74–77.

25 For a good description of the trading circuit, see Farooqi, Smuggling as Subversion, pp. 71–73.

26 Enclosure no 8B, in Consultation no 8A, Bengal Board of Revenue (Miscellaneous) Proceedings, Opium, 9 March to 22 June 1824. On Appa Gangadhar, the main revenue farmer of Sindhia in northern Malwa, see Farooqi, Smuggling as Subversion, pp. 113–114.

27 Tantiah Jog, or, as he is more frequently called, Tatya Jog, was a Maharashtrian Brahmin, the head of the firm of Ganesdas Kisnaji, which belonged to the Kibe family. He played a major role at Holkar's court. See Ibid., pp. 46–47.

28 Swinton, Opium Agent in Malwa, to Trotter, Secretary to the Board of Customs, Salt and Opium, Fort William, 2 January 1827, enclosure no 12 in Extract Bengal Salt and Opium Consultations, 8 February 1827, Board's Collections, 1784–1858, no 29139, Oriental and India Office Collections of the British Library.

29 It is thus reported by the Political Agent at Udaipur in December 1827 that ‘a party of smugglers have found their way in spite of opposition of Maharajah's troops’, although a further report appended describes an ‘affray’ with 200 Megnahs (tribals?), in which 149 bags of opium were seized by the army of the Rana of Mewar. Political Agent at Udaipur to Captain Dangerfield, 5 December 1827, enclosed in consultation no 11, 5 January 1828, Board's Collections, no 29139.

30 Bauss, R., ‘Textiles, bullion and other trades of Goa: Commerce with Surat, other areas of India, Luso-Brazilian ports, Macau and Mozambique, 1816–1819’, Indian Economic and Social History Review, 24, 3, 1997, pp. 275–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Pinto, C., Trade and Finance in Portuguese India: A Study of the Portuguese Country Trade 1770–1840, Delhi, Oxford University Press, 1994.Google Scholar

31 A visit by two Englishmen, probably government spies, who requested that the Customs house be shown to them, is described in an intelligence report written by an official, the ‘Native Superintendent of transit customs’. When alerted to the presence of the Englishmen, the Bombay merchants who were there ‘writing out contracts for 4000 maunds of opium’, ‘concealed themselves in a room’, so that the English gentlemen-spies ‘did not see the merchants’. Enclosed in Collector of Surat to Secretary to the Government, Bombay, 2 May 1823, Bengal Board of Revenue (Miscellaneous) Proceedings, Opium, 7 January to 27 June 1823.

32 Swinton to Secretary, Board of Customs, Salt and Opium, 4 March 1824, consulation no 18, 23 March 1824, Bengal Board of Revenue (Miscellaneous) Proceedings, Opium, 9 March to 22 June 1824.

33 In the above-quoted intelligence report, the British intelligence agent in Damao reports that ‘3500 maunds of opium have arrived, and two ships belonging to Sir Roger de Faria, Portuguese, are expected soon from Bombay to take it to Macao’. See note 31 above.

34 Minute dated 30 April 1823 by Warden, enclosed in Territorial Department, Revenue Opium, Bombay, to Secretary to the Supreme Government, 5 May 1823, Bengal Board of Revenue (Miscellaneous) Proceedings Opium, 7 January to 27 June 1823.

35 In a report to the Governor General by three officials in the Opium Department in 1823, it is mentioned that ‘During the first three years, it was Macao and Calcutta capital, mostly the latter, which financed the purchases of smuggled opium. However, Calcutta capital in present year withdrew and Bombay merchants have become the principal if not the only purchasers’. The officials added that ‘the principal speculators resident in Bengal and China’ had turned to the purchase of the Company's Malwa opium in the Bombay auction with Calcutta and Macao capital. Larkin, Lindsay, Sargent, of the Opium Department, to Governor General in Council, 4 August 1823, Bengal Board of Revenue (Miscellaneous) Proceedings, Opium, 11 July to 30 December 1823, consultation no 12, 8 August.

36 James Taylor to Opium Agent, Bombay, 13 July 1821, enclosed in Revenue Department, Bombay, to Secretary to the Supreme Government in the Territorial Department, 27 February 1822, consultation no 16, Bengal Board of Revenue (Miscellaneous) Proceedings Opium, 4 January to 28 June 1822.

37 Smuggling as Subversion, pp. 145–151.

38 He writes: ‘What we encounter here is not just “resilience of the bazaar economy” . . . but a serious conflict between colonialism and Indian capitalists, wherein indigenous merchants were able to engage in a contest at various levels including that crucial arena- the market’, Ibid., p. 8.

39 Farooqi distinguishes between the attitude of Holkar's regime, which he finds more amenable to British pressures, and that of Sindhia's which appears to have been more intransigent. Ibid., p. 49.

40 Ibid., p. 70.

41 Subramanian, Lakshmi, Indigenous Capital and Imperial Expansion: Bombay, Surat and the West Coast, Delhi, Oxford University Press, 1996, pp. 336–337.Google Scholar

42 Letter from Deputy Secretary to Government in attendance upon Governor-General to Resident at Indore quoted in ‘Historical Memorandum’ by R.M. Dane, Appendix B to Royal Commission on Opium, 1894–95, Vol. VII, Final Report, Part II, Historical Appendices, London, 1895, p. 54.

43 Enclosure, dated 17 February 1824 in Consultation no 8A, 9 March, Bengal Board of Revenue (Miscellaneous) Proceedings, Opium, 9 March to 22 June 1824.

44 Farooqi mentions the names of several Bombay-based British and Portuguese firms involved in Malwa opium. See Smuggling as Subversion, p. 115.

45 T.A. Timberg, The Marwaris: From Traders to Industrialists, Delhi, Vikas, 1978, pp. 162–163.

46 Apart from Farroqi, they include J.F. Richards, ‘The Opium Industry in British India’ and Markovits, C., ‘Bombay as a Business Centre: A Comparison with Calcutta’, in Thorner, A. and Patel, S., eds., Bombay, Metaphor for Modern India, Delhi, Oxford University Press, 1995, pp. 26–46.Google Scholar

47 See the detailed report on ship movements between Karachi and Damao in 1821–22 sent on 19 March 1822 by Charles Norris, the resident at Kutch to the Bombay Revenue Department. Enclosed in Bombay Revenue Proceedings for 1822, 10 April 1822.

48 In a letter, the Governor of Bombay observed that opium had come ‘from Hindoostan’ through Sindh. Secretary to Government of Bombay to Secretary Supreme Government at Fort William, 29 July 1822, Bombay Proceedings 1822, 31 July.

49 See Markovits, C., The Global World of Indian Merchants 1750–1947: Traders of Sind from Bukhara to Panama, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2000, pp. 41–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

50 Mentioned in Farooqi, Smuggling as Subversion, p. 119.

51 Native Agent in Sind to Colonel H. Pottinger, dated 27 November 1830, translated by A. Burnes, Assistant Resident, 30 November 1830, Bombay Revenue Proceedings, December 1830, no 135.

52 Resident in Sinde to Chief Secretary to the Government of Bombay, 26 October 1839, Bombay Revenue Proceedings 1839, no 7477, 31 December 1839.

53 Secretary to Government of India to Secretary to Government of Bombay, 28 August 1839, ibid., no 6157, 23 October 1839.

54 Wong, J.Y., ‘British Annexation of Sind in 1843: An Economic Perspective’, Modern Asian Studies, 31, 2, 1997, pp. 225–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The weakness of Wong's argument is that it is purely retrospective and also largely speculative. Because the annexation of Sindh (actually the occupation of Karachi in 1839 four years before the official annexation of Sindh) led to a suspension of the smuggling through Sindh, it is inferred that obtaining it was the real motive for the annexation, a typical ex post facto rationalisation. Besides, the emphasis on the role of Ellenborough, who is supposed to have had a particularly good grasp of the financial aspects of the China opium trade, must remain speculative in the absence of policy statements on his part.

55 See A Forgotten Chapter of Indian History as described in the Memoirs of Seth Naomal Hotchand, C.S.I. of Karachi 1804–1878, Exeter, 1915 (reprint Karachi, Oxford University Press, 1982), a fascinating memoir by this great merchant, translated into English by one of his descendants.

56 Two recent contributions to the topic are: Tagliacozzo, E., Secret Trades, Porous Borders: Smuggling and States Along a Southeast Asian Frontier, 1865–1915, New Haven, CT, Yale University Press, 2005Google Scholar, and L.R. Grahn, The Political Economy of Smuggling: Regional Informal Economies in Early Bourbon New Granada, Boulder, Col., Westview, 1997.

57 Tagliacozzo, Secret Trades, Porous Borders, p. 3.

58 Mentioned in Siddiqi, A., ‘The Business World of Jamsetjee Jeejeebhoy’, Indian Economic and Social History Review, 19, 3–4, 1982, pp. 301–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

59 See Harris, F.R., Jamsetji Nusserwanji Tata. A chronicle of his life, Bombay, Asia publishing, 1958 (2nd ed.), p. 11.Google Scholar

60 See in particular, his recent Opium City: The Making of Early Victorian Bombay, Gurgaon, Three Essays, 2006.